HOUSE deputies hit back yesterday at Attorney-general Solon Nikitas’ report on the law of evidence, showing strong disapproval for his unwillingness to change the rule on hearsay evidence.
Nikitas laid down his opinion on the Law of Evidence in a report released on Tuesday. He argued abolition of the law on hearsay evidence in criminal and civil cases would be anti-constitutional and tantamount to a breach of European laws on human rights and international rules. Abolition of the rule conflicted with the principles of a fair trial, which was the triumph of civilisation, he stated.
His position was to keep the law as it is, by excluding hearsay evidence from criminal and civil cases.
The House of Representatives is set to decide in October on the long-running issue of modernising the law of evidence. Supporters of change argue the law as it stands is outdated and needs amendment to meet the demands of modern society. Police have on many occasions shown exasperation with the law, which does not permit the inclusion of hearsay evidence. One example is the exclusion from the courts of computer data relating to the Stock Exchange fiasco of 1999.
DISY deputy and deputy head of the House Legal Committee, Ionas Nicolaou, highlighted the wide difference of opinion in the government between the Attorney-general and the Justice Minister who have diametrically opposite views on the matter.
AKEL deputy Aristophanes Georgiou also a member of the House Legal Committee, argued that hearsay evidence could be included in civil cases and in certain criminal cases.
Referring to Nikitas’ opinion, Georgiou said: “It is an opinion which is respected, and significant because it comes from the Attorney-general, but from there onwards people have the right, from the President and Cabinet down to any other citizen to disagree with this opinion.”
“Our position is clear. Every day that passes, every law needs improvements to adapt to the level the community is at. For this reason, we have suggested certain amendments to the law, including the rule on hearsay evidence, which has had the approval of the majority of parliament for 10 months now,” added Georgiou.
The AKEL deputy said the suggestion was to include hearsay evidence in civil cases and certain criminal cases that refer to modern recording equipment or computers.
Nicolaou voiced strong disagreement with the Attorney-general’s viewpoint, saying the need to modernise the law on evidence was imperative. He described the views of the government as a ticking bomb.
“The need for change of the law is crucial, not just for civil cases but also for criminal cases. I want to stress what the Justice Minister said a few weeks ago regarding the weakness of the authorities to investigate crimes as well as punish people responsible for those crimes,” he said.
Nicolaou questioned the motives of releasing the opinion to the public now, given the government was moving towards changing the law of evidence. “In essence, these opinions constitute a bomb for the government regarding the law of evidence,” he added.
The DISY deputy highlighted that changes of the law were on the table for eight years now. “In October, this matter will be dealt with one way or another,” concluded Nicolaou.
Government Spokesman Kypros Chrysostomides said yesterday the matter was in the hands of the House effectively. “It is an issue under discussion. The Attorney-general has his opinion. The House has its opinion. The matter will certainly be solved by the House when it decides either for or against amendment,” he said.
The spokesman explained that the Attorney-general’s opinion was binding on the government but not on parliament.
“The House is free to follow the opinions of the Attorney-general or not,” clarified Chrysostomides.
Regarding the reported difference of opinion between the Justice Minister and the Attorney-general, Chrysostomides replied: “Democratic dialogue is welcome…but the House has the final say.”
